text:
Trump Taxes: Corruption and Foreign Influence
The Times investigation sheds more light on what most of us already knew.
James Joyner · Monday, September 28, 2020 · 31 comments
I find the feature story rolling out the New York Times' investigation into Donald Trump's tax returns, "LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP'S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE," frustrating. While I understand that destroying the image of Trump as a hugely successful businessman is likely to sell more papers, it buries the lede on the far more important story: the President of the United States is leveraged to the hilt and is profiting from his office.
Granted, this is a rollout—and a successful one from a marketing standpoint—of what promises to be a weeks-long series. Still, it seems more designed to goad Trump into reaction than focusing on the true news story. The write-offs and the like strike me as salacious gossip designed to influence an ongoing re-election bid more than truly newsworthy. The double-dealing and the fact that the sitting President owes a lot of people a lot of money is, by contrast, something that the American people legitimately ought to know.
Similarly, while the infographic "CHARTING AN EMPIRE: A TIMELINE OF TRUMP'S FINANCES" is beautiful and intricately crafted, it seems designed to be time-consuming rather than useful. I finally gave up scrolling down in hopes of finding evidence of corruption.
That said, I slogged through the former to buttress the information contained in David Leonhardt's snapshot that I chronicled here about the public policy implications. They are not all that surprising, frankly, but damning nonetheless.
As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.
The longstanding audit is the ostensible reason why Trump has not released his tax returns. Why it has taken this long to complete is a matter of conjecture.
Now, with his financial challenges mounting, the records show that he depends more and more on making money from businesses that put him in potential and often direct conflict of interest with his job as president.
And within the next four years, more than $300 million in loans — obligations for which he is personally responsible — will come due.
While the conflicts of interest have long been obvious to those paying even casual attention, the fact of massive loan obligations is, I believe, new news. Granting that he was at one point making some $400 million annually from The Apprentice and related marketing ventures, that seems to have largely dried up.
Against that backdrop, the records go much further toward revealing the actual and potential conflicts of interest created by Mr. Trump's refusal to divest himself of his business interests while in the White House. His properties have become bazaars for collecting money directly from lobbyists, foreign officials and others seeking face time, access or favor; the records for the first time put precise dollar figures on those transactions.
Again, this has been obvious going back at least to his time as President-Elect. For reasons that escape me, these potential conflicts were hardly mentioned during the campaign and weren't something I gave much thought to ahead of time. (Presumably, this was at least partly a function of outrage saturation of a like we've never seen before with so many seemingly game-over scandals bouncing off him.)
Still, the numbers are interesting:
At the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., a flood of new members starting in 2015 allowed him to pocket an additional $5 million a year from the business. In 2017, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association paid at least $397,602 to the Washington hotel, where the group held at least one event during its four-day World Summit in Defense of Persecuted Christians.
That's not illicit per se but certainly raises red flags. It's why we made Jimmy Carter divest his peanut farm. Granting that Trump's party controlled both the House and Senate the first two years of his presidency, it's remarkable to me that Democrats haven't banged the drum harder on this. It's the sort of scandal that requires little sophistication to understand: it's garden variety corruption on a large scale.
The Times was also able to take the fullest measure to date of the president's income from overseas, where he holds ultimate sway over American diplomacy. When he took office, Mr. Trump said he would pursue no new foreign deals as president. Even so, in his first two years in the White House, his revenue from abroad totaled $73 million. And while much of that money was from his golf properties in Scotland and Ireland, some came from licensing deals in countries with authoritarian-leaning leaders or thorny geopolitics — for example, $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India and $1 million from Turkey.
Again, it's impossible to know whether and how much these amounts differed from what they would have been had Trump not been elected. But they're obvious conflicts of interest that simply shouldn't exist.
No subject has provoked more intense speculation about Mr. Trump's finances than his connection to Russia. While the tax records revealed no previously unknown financial connection — and, for the most part, lack the specificity required to do so — they did shed new light on the money behind the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, a subject of enduring intrigue because of subsequent investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
The records show that the pageant was the most profitable Miss Universe during Mr. Trump's time as co-owner, and that it generated a personal payday of $2.3 million — made possible, at least in part, by the Agalarov family, who would later help set up the infamous 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials seeking "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton and a Russian lawyer connected to the Kremlin.
In August, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that looked extensively into the circumstances of the Moscow pageant, and revealed that as recently as February, investigators subpoenaed the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, who was involved in planning it. Mr. Agalarov's father, Aras, a billionaire who boasts of close ties to Mr. Putin, was Mr. Trump's partner in the event.
Now, 2013 was before Trump's candidacy, much less his presidency. I'm not sure this tells us anything new. But that's only because the level of known corruption and foreign entanglement was already so high.
In May, the chairman of a trade group representing Turkish business interests wrote to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross urging support for increased trade between the United States and Turkey. The ultimate goal was nothing less than "reorienting the U.S. supply chain away from China."
The letter was among three sent to cabinet secretaries by Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, chairman of the Turkey-U.S. Business Council, who noted that he had copied each one to Mr. Trump.
The president needed no introduction to Mr. Yalcindag: The Turkish businessman helped negotiate a licensing deal in 2008 for his family's company to develop two Trump towers in Istanbul. The tax records show the deal has earned Mr. Trump at least $13 million — far more than previously known — including more than $1 million since he entered the White House, even as his onetime associate now lobbies on behalf of Turkish interests.
Mr. Yalcindag said he had "remained friendly" with Mr. Trump since their work together years ago, but that all communications between his trade group and the administration "go through formal channels and are properly disclosed."
The ethical quandaries created by Mr. Trump's decision to keep his business while in the White House have been documented. But the full financial measure of his extraordinary confluence of interests — a president with a wealth of business entanglements at home and in myriad geopolitical hot spots — has remained elusive.
Again, that he's made $13 million since 2008, only $1 million of which has been since 2017, tells us very little. Hell, he might have lost money on the deal as a result of taking office. But, again, the fact that there's an ongoing business relationship in a country with an increasingly autocratic country with which the US has major foreign relations issues raises ethical questions that simply shouldn't exist.
Based on the financial disclosures, which report much of his income in broad ranges, Mr. Trump's earnings from the Istanbul towers could have been as low as $3.2 million. In the Philippines, where he licensed his name to a Manila tower nearly a decade ago, the low end of the range was $4.1 million — less than half of the $9.3 million he actually made. In Azerbaijan, he collected more than $5 million for the failed hotel project, about twice what appeared on his public filings.
It did not take long for conflicts to emerge when Mr. Trump ran for president and won. The Philippines' strongman leader, Rodrigo Duterte, chose as a special trade envoy to Washington the businessman behind the Trump tower in Manila. In Argentina, a key person who had been involved in a Uruguayan licensing deal that earned Mr. Trump $2.3 million was appointed to a cabinet post.
The president's conflicts have been most evident with Turkey, where the business community and the authoritarian government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have not hesitated to leverage various Trump enterprises to their advantage. When Turkish-American relations were at a low point, a Turkish business group canceled a conference at Mr. Trump's Washington hotel; six months later, when the two countries were on better terms, the rescheduled event was attended by Turkish government officials. Turkish Airlines also chose the Trump National Golf Club in suburban Virginia to host an event.
These sort of conflicts appeared as soon as Trump was elected. Even as President-Elect, foreign leaders, businesses, and various lobbying interests started staying in Trump properties and otherwise courting favor through this venue. It's exceedingly problematic.
This, too, is simply more data for an old story:
More broadly, the tax records suggest other ways in which Mr. Trump's presidency has propped up his sagging bottom line. Monthly credit card receipts, reported to the I.R.S. by third-party card processing firms, reflect the way certain of his resorts, golf courses and hotels became favored stomping grounds, if not venues for influence-trading, beginning in 2015 and continuing into his time in the White House.
The credit card data does not reflect total revenue, and is useful mainly for showing short-term ups and downs of consumer interest in a business. While two of Mr. Trump's marquee draws — the Washington hotel in the Old Post Office and the Doral golf resort — are loaded with debt and continue to lose money, both have seen credit card transactions rise markedly with his political ascent.
At the hotel, the monthly receipts grew from $3.7 million in December 2016 shortly after it opened, to $5.4 million in January 2017 and $6 million by May 2018. At Doral, after Mr. Trump declared his candidacy in June 2015, credit card revenue more than doubled, to $13 million, for the three months through August, compared with the same period the year before.
One Trump enterprise that has been regularly profitable, and is a persistent source of concern about ethical conflicts and national security lapses, is the Mar-a-Lago club. Profits there rose sharply after Mr. Trump declared his candidacy, as courtiers eagerly joining up brought a tenfold rise in cash from initiation fees — from $664,000 in 2014 to just under $6 million in 2016, even before Mr. Trump doubled the cost of initiation in January 2017. The membership rush allowed the president to take $26 million out of the business from 2015 through 2018, nearly triple the rate at which he had paid himself in the prior two years.
Some of the largest payments from business groups for events or conferences at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties have come since Mr. Trump became president, the tax records show.
At Doral, Mr. Trump collected a total of at least $7 million in 2015 and 2016 from Bank of America, and at least $1.2 million in 2017 and 2018 from a trade association representing food retailers and wholesalers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce paid Doral at least $406,599 in 2018.
The Times fully admits that tax records tell an incomplete story. But, while Trump and company contend that the financial disclosure records he files every year paint the true picture, the Times is right that they don't. The tax returns show details that can be hidden in the disclosure forms.
With the exception of the fact that Trump owes a lot of money that's coming due soon—and the extent of what's at stake in the IRS audit—all of this is merely detail for what we already knew. But putting numbers to the story is nonetheless illuminating. And, of course, the average voter is almost certainly paying less attention on a day in, day out basis than OTB readers and me.
FILED UNDER: Donald Trump, Taxes, US Politics
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.
Daryl and his brother Darryl says:
Monday, 28 September 2020 at 09:54
Loomong large in all of this is that the IRS is currently run by someone with a vested interest in the Trump brand;
"Commissioner Charles Rettig's personal financial disclosures for the past two years, analyzed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, show that the IRS commissioner earns $100,000-200,000 per year from his properties at the Trump-branded Hawaii resort, which he purchased in 2006 before the hotel officially opened."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/09/01/irs-chief-makes-more-than-100000-per-year-off-trump-property-documents-show/#3dfa60007488
@Daryl and his brother Darryl: Yes, good point. It's almost certainly unprecedented for someone to be elected President while the IRS he is about to take over is deciding whether he stole $80 million from the Treasury. Normally, we would have had some sort of independent commission in charge of the matter. Alas, these are not normal times.
The legalities will be sorted out by Cy Vance and whoever Biden appoints as AG. This story is simple: Trump is a shitty businessman and a fraud, a con-man skating along on loans he cannot repay. The source of those loans? We don't know yet, but I suspect we will. Vance has had all this for a while. Federal grand juries will dig further once the odious Barr slithers out of view.
Trump got elected as a businessman. Well, he's not a businessman, he's a pampered rich snot who burned through all of Daddy's money like the wastrel third son of a fading aristo. Now he needs more money. Where's it going to come from? How do you borrow 300 million to cover 300 million in unsourced loans? I guess if you're a catastrophically bad money manager up to his eyeballs in debt while his assets evaporate, you'd need a really good friend. Even better than dirty Deutschebank.
"Hello? Hello? Wells Fargo? I owe 300 million, my income is down to pocket change, probably gonna be indicted as a tax cheat and all of my assets are losing value, so can I…?"
No, he won't get that from a legit bank. Will one of the real billionaires bail him out? Nah, not 300 million, not for this assclown who's about to go down.
Which leaves. . .who? Can we think of anyone with a lot of untraceable cash on hand? Hmmm? Any names come to mind? I know, let's follow the forensic evidence. Let's check and see whether Trump's lip prints are still visible on MBS's ass. Wait, is that Trump's DNA all over Putin's prick?
Do we really have to go through round 500 of, 'Well, I don't know, I'm troubled by the timing, I'm not sure this adds up to a crime, hem and haw and harrumph?' How close do the dots have to be for people to connect them? Sometimes 1 + 1 just equals 2.
He's owned. Has been from Day One. Just like any poor slob whose horse faded in the stretch and now owes Ralphie Cifaretto the vig. Owned.
Oh, wait, did we see 300 million? Turns out it may be 1.1 billion. With a 'b.'
The source of those loans? We don't know yet, but I suspect we will.
NPR reporter Adam Davidson:
Some clear implications from the Trump Tax story:
– He blew through other people's money. His dad's. Then Mark Burnett's. Plus loans.
– he starts blowing through the most money in 2011, when the known sources disappear.
– He had a new source of funds.
— Adam Davidson (@adamdavidson) September 28, 2020
– This new source had more money and seems to have put fewer restrictions on his spending.
– Only question for us as a nation: what is that new source of money?
– As I've written obsessively, 2011 is when he gets into business with the Mammadovs.
– Soon after, he's in business with the Agalarovs, flirting with Georgians and Kazakhs with ties to Putin.
– All of these groups are—between 2011 and 2016—known to be laundering money through golf courses.
– Golf courses are one of the best ways to launder large amounts of money.
So, next step: look to Scotland. That is where he spent this money, where the businesses make the least sense.
The math seems clear: *somebody* was giving him 100s of millions to spend.
Until we know who, we don't know who this man owes and what they know about him.
5/end
Presidential debate Oct. 15 is town hall format, might be a chance to see whether the public has much interest in Trump's taxes.
drj says:
He's owned.
To state the obvious: this is a gigantic problem even if his creditors are red-blooded, apple pie-loving Americans.
The fact that it's probably Russian oligarchs makes an already very bad situation even worse.
The legalities will be sorted out by Cy Vance and whoever Biden appoints as AG.
Cy Vance has allowed the Trumps to get away with shenanigans before…I'm not holding my breath, now.
https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud
I still think the best part of this is the $70K deduction for hair styling.
I would pay $750 for Biden to start laughing on the debate stage and say; "Dude, you paid $70,000 for THAT?"
@Daryl and his brother Darryl:
Doesn't seem like much of an ROI, does it? I'd love to see the receipts.
The point has been made by someone (I forget who) that someone with this level of debt would never be granted a security clearance. Of course, being elected president bypasses that but there's a reason for that rule.
James, after the first paragraph of this post plus the last few posts, it's clear that In the end, you really can't accept reality. You have got to find or manufacture and out.
Mr. Prosser says:
@charon:
Sorry Charon my fat fingers hit the wrong key. But, last week I asked if there would be more than one debate and some responded there would not be. There definitely won't be a town hall style debate, I'm confident of that.
While corruption and foreign influence is very important, the line of political attack will be directed at the massive losses and monetary mismanagement Trump has incurred and engaged in.
There's no way he'll continue to poll well in economic matters.
Also, and perhaps most important, he can be branded a loser and a fraud. One-term loser Trump. He holds on to money like a drunk sailor on leave.
@Barry:
You're going to have to be more specific.
I can't fathom the individual who thinks Trump is doing a bang-up job on the economy, notwithstanding the massive collapse since March, and yet is going to change his mind based on Trump's personal finances.
@Barry: james, I apologize for my bad comment. When I read more posts, I realize that I was being unfair.
Well, the collapse since March wasn't his fault when it happened. He's making it worse by refusing to adopt the measures that will end the epidemic in America sooner, though, and by failing to pass another round of increased aid to those most affected.
But part of the approval he enjoyed on the economy had a lot to do with his image as a tycoon (as well as motivated reasoning and narratives by him and the GOP). A Potemkin tycoon is far less impressive.
He may lose no ground with his base, but he probably will lose with saner Republicans and Independents.
If the Democrats have any brains, they should make ads that showed Trump squandered the good economy he inherited from Obama by slowing it down with tariffs and letting it languish in COVID Hell, just as he squandered the money he inherited from his father. Paint him as a magnet for monetary losses.
If you're retired and living off your investments, the fact the market if frothy might have you believing that Trump is doing a good job. I have a couple of friends who take that position, though due to Covid and how reprehensible he is, the won't vote for him.
My sense is that this will hurt trump on the margins. If his support dropped even 1 or 2% it would be devastating for him, even if they just stayed home.
@Kathy: They could also run some ads showing the lifestyles of middle-class Americans and the taxes they pay, followed by images of Trump's private jet and golden toilet with the voiceover saying "and he paid $750 a year…if he paid at all."
the IRS commissioner earns $100,000-200,000 per year from his properties at the Trump-branded Hawaii resort, which he purchased in 2006 before the hotel officially opened
This is actually interesting. I don't know whether Trump claims that he actually owns the Hawaii property but if so it is part of a pattern. Trump claims to own something and list it as an income generating asset when seeking investors or looking for a loan. But in reality it was all sold off piecemeal to small investors who probably paid too much because of the thrill of being part of the Trump empire.
There was a really intriguing comment from one of the pre-covid articles about Trump's trouble in NYC. It mentioned that the individual owners of the Trump Hotel were unhappy because they were getting very little business due to the Trump name. The implication was that some number of rooms, maybe all of them, were owned by individuals on a one by one basis, with The Trump Organization managing the hotel as a whole (for hefty fees no doubt).
This little detail has fascinated me because I remember it being reported way back when Trump was going spectacularly bankrupt that the banks were letting him stay personally solvent because "he was worth more if people saw him as a successful businessman". I always wondered what that could actually mean. Just in what way was Trump worth more to them if people thought he was wealthy? I also wondered how he ended up with Trump Tower. But that article snapped a light bulb in my head. What if the deal with Trump was that his organization could manage the properties (banks don't want to be property managers) and he would schmooze and wheedle and play the big man and get suckers lined up to pay 2-3 times the going rate as the bank sold the buildings off room by room, office by office? I have no proof of this, of course, but I would be willing to bet a fair amount that's what happened.
dazedandconfused says:
Commercial real estate development is a confidence game. Everybody is scared they will get fleeced. The image of a massively successful person helps ease those fears. No con man tries to get rich people to loan them money by pretending to be poor. Rich people only trust other rich people, generally speaking.
On the issue, I can't see enough to tell if he's in trouble or not. He may have shares of ownership in a great many holdings but didn't report them to the bank. Need a tax return to get the whole story. Moreover, it says he was getting $400 mil a year as a game-show host. Imagine he could go for Rush Limbaugh money now, should he suddenly have a bunch of free time on his hands. Article says he's on the hook for only $300 mil. I have no idea what they are thinking.
Making Rush money he could get that much in a couple months. I don't see anything here that compels another bankruptcy, not for this guy. Also, if he owes the money to shady Russian investors bankruptcy won't help. "In US you declare bankruptcy, in Russia bank rupture you."
@dazedandconfused:
Moreover, it says he was getting $400 mil a year as a game-show host.
you might want to reread.
JohnSF says:
@Mikey:
Turnberry eh?
It would be very interesting to to look very closely at the sources of the investment money, what exactly the expenditures at Turnberry are, and exactly what the financial transactions (nominal price vs actual monies received) are on the Turnberry estate properties sold.
Often to persons from Russia or other "former Soviet states".
And especially given the frequent use of UK property for "tax efficient" investment purchases.
And also to unravel the whole rats nest of interlocking companies, investment holdings and tiered share-ownership involved.
keef says:
Its disappointing to see so much pure conjecture from you, James. Its what I would expect from your usual commentariat here.
The law on tax loss carry forwards changed under the Obama Administration. Trump applied them. Talk to Obama. It appears to be legitimate, but disputes with the IRS are typical. They are a feature of the code.
As for all the speculation about conflicts, that's mostly quite the imagination, and short on facts and evidence.
I do note, the obvious conflicts with Biden and his son – payments, no show jobs, cushy deals, ridiculous China and Ukrainian subsidies have received scant attention at OTB. I guess morality is situational.
@keef: Never mind that big, fat elephant ass of the Trump kids and their no show jobs, cushy deals, and Chinese and Saudi Arabian subsidies hanging out the window, look at that mouse over there getting a piece of cheese!
Pitiful.
Tuesday, 29 September 2020 at 06:06
@keef:
"…conflicts with Biden… payments, no show jobs, cushy deals, ridiculous China and Ukrainian subsidies…"
Interesting indeed. And news.
Could you give me some details of Joe Biden's Ukrainian subsidies? (you know, Joe Biden, the Biden who is the candidate.) His no-show jobs? His payments? His cushy deals?
Or are you just flinging mud at Hunter Biden again and hoping some sticks?
Which might be relevant if he was, let's say, running for President.
Compare with Donald Trump, the actual President and an actual Presidential candidate.
Who has, quite legally let us assume, arranged his taxes to pay the absolute minimum; legal maybe, but politically relevant also.
He would have been wise to be open about that from the start.
And such arrangements are politically interesting, given the level of debate around tax levels and allowances, and the argued failure of wealthy individuals, families and corporations to pay an equitable contribution.
And such a pattern of loss making enterprises; what a sadly unfortunate business entrepreneur he is, to be sure.
But are you really maintaining that hundreds of millions of dollars in opaquely sourced loans are nothing to be concerned about?
Especially as you can hardly throw a rock at the crowd around Trump without hitting someone with connections to deeply worrying people.
Even among property developers, you might not expect connections to such as Felix Sater, David Bogatin, Tevfik Arif, Oleg Deripaska, etc. to crop up quite so regularly.
mattbernius says:
While taxes and tax reporting are difficult concepts, they are not impossible to understand. And this article from Forbes provides a lot of good context for those who are interested in learning a bit m0re:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/09/28/the-ordinary-taxpayers-guide-to-the-extraordinary-story-of-trumps-tax-returns/#4dc5d7bf5ba9
I'm always curious with people like you? Do you know you're lying to cover up for being lied to by the world's most transparent con man? Or are you just as stupid as you seem?
Turkish Forces Cross Border Into Northern Syria, Hit Kurdish Areas
Turkey Downs Russian Jet
The End Of The Credit Card Signature
Jamal Khashoggi Was Murdered At Saudi Consulate, Turkish Officials Conclude
Trump Pulls U.S. Forces From Northern Syria, Leaving Kurds Vulnerable


WE HUMANS ARE, TO PUT IT GENTLY, PACK RATS. We are loath to throw away anything. How many of us have an attic, basement or garage filled to the rafters with stuff we haven't used, or even looked at, in years. Even King Tut took a ton and a half of junk with him when he set off for the Afterlife. Over three thousand years later his tomb looked like a garage sale run amok.
Some things we hold onto because there is a sentimental attachment – a piece of jewelry worn by a beloved member of the family or a favorite hat from when you played on a team, but what about that broken lawn chair that you've been meaning to fix since 1971?
THE SUN IS SHINING. THE SKY IS BLUE. THE SIGNS ARE ON EVERY POLE.
The other morning while driving the short distance to St. Arbucks I saw four large signs tacked to poles and trees.
A person can't have enough rummage I always say…or maybe it was somebody else. I don't remember.
Kinda sounds like either a scavenger hunt or Spring Cleaning to me.
OUTSIDE OUR APARTMENT THE WIND IS HOWLING. It is a north wind coming across the open sea from the polar regions. It may be late April, but it feels like February. I'm glad I brought along my heavy jacket.
The clouds in the sky, according to my wife, the lovely and cinematically referential, Dawn, resemble the clouds used by space aliens to conceal the Mother Ship from prying human eyes. She's right.


text:
UFC 211 DFS Picks: The Violence Is Too Damn High!
May 13 | 8:00 am
UFC 211 has 13 fights on the card. You read that right. Thirteen fights!!! The violence meter is sky high for what is easily the best card to grace the MMA world in 2017 after a few clunkers and disappointments started the year off on the wrong foot. The main/co-main event are both title fights with compelling story lines and great fighters from an aesthetic point of view as both JDS/Miocic and Andrade/Jedrzejcyzk love being involved in wars of attrition. The main event will be a rematch of one of the best heavyweight fights in UFC history, as both JDS and Miocic quite literally went blow for blow in a 5 round war that JDS was just able to edge out despite both men looking like a bloody mess. It's unlikely the rematch turns into a war again as both men have improved their striking defenses since then, more notably JDS since his surprising KO loss to Overeem. Joanna Jedrzejcyzk has been dismantling the 115 pound division for the last couple years, as this will be her 5th title defense and possibly against the toughest opponent to date. Ever since Andrade moved down from 135 pounds, she's been a wrecking ball with her stocky build and lethal combination of speed and power. The 115 lb division was a great fit for Andrade, as she was just much too short for 135 pounds and still has the speed to keep up with the quicker opponents at strawweight. The fight could very, very easily crack 100+ sig strikes for each fighter by the 3rd round, and I'm not even exaggerating as Joanna has hit 100+ sig in every title defense thus far and Andrade has hit 100+ in her 2 out of last 3 fights at strawweight. Whew. And that's just the freakin' co-main event! Masvidal vs Maia will be a title contender fight, with the winner likely fighting whoever the WW champion may be afterwards. Woodley? Nick? GSP? Then you got Dustin Poirier vs Eddie Alvarez that just screams violence all over it. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! Yes indeedy, there's even MORE to the bananas card with a tremendous fight between Yair Rodriguez and Frankie Edgar on the main card. AND….ok, that's enough. The point here is it's 13 fights and only MAYBE one fight looks really boring on paper. My body is ready to give energy to all of these incredible fighters and I hope yours is as well. On a side note, since it is a 13 fight card, I will be skipping the intros for the majority of the fights, so Google will be your friend if you want the background for certain fighters.
Gadzhimurad Antigulov vs Joachim Christensen
Antigulov is riding a 13 fight overall streak and finishing in 12 of those 13 wins. He also fought in the Russian promotion ACB, which has some surprisingly solid talent and has been on the come up with their addition of talented fighters. Christensen is coming off an unimpressive KO win over Bojan Mihajlovic and got submitted in his UFC debut against Luis "Frankenstein" Henrique. Antigulov is a tireless Sambo wrestler with some really impressive hip work and quick reflexes for a light heavy-weight. He's equally aggressive on the ground as he is in hunting for take-downs, which would explain why 14 of his 19 career wins have come by submission. Christensen is a BJJ black belt but didn't look like it against Frankenstein, and honestly, I thought he would batter Bojan around if the fight stayed standing. Christensen did get in some big shots but looked lethargic and a little slow overall, which isn't a good thing considering Antigulov is better everywhere outside of his stand-up against Christensen. I haven't seen anything that tells me Christensen can stop Antigulov's offensive wrestling, and as far as grappling goes if you lose in that department against Luis Henrique, you're probably not going to last long in the UFC. Antigulov has some legitimate offensive wrestling and a personality that's a great fit for his skill-set and the LHW division. Pick this man for your cash team cuz he's gonna rack up the points through take-downs if he doesn't finish it in the 1st round.
Antigulov via 3rd round anaconda choke
Enrique Barzola vs Gabriel Benitez
Barzola was the lightweight winner in TUF Latin America 2, but will be moving down to featherweight against Benitez. He's primarily a selective wrestler that attacks if an opponent puts himself out of position after a strike. It's what makes him such an effective wrestler, but it's also what makes Barzola a snoozer other times. Barzola will often find himself backing away and being hesitant to throw anything on the feet, waiting for the moment to pounce on a single leg take-down or a slam from the clinch. Facing an opponent who can out-grapple him will probably force Barzola to have to be extra vigilant on his take-down attempts, and Benitez being a BJJ black belt with a very good guillotine choke just expounds on Barzola's inability to effectively close the distance by himself. Benitez's a solid southpaw striker, utilizing plenty of low and side kicks to set up the left straight, and he's very cognizant of where he is in relation to his opponents. That prevents over-extending himself and allows Benitez to be able to quickly drop down his hands for either underhooks against take-down attempts or to set up a front head-lock. If Barzola had any sort of stand-up that didn't consist of haphazard ducking hooks in a futile attempt at closing the gap for a take-down attempt, he might have a chance against Benitez. Barzola just isn't a threat on the feet and struggles mightily at checking kicks, then you add in Benitez's guillotine choke and grappling skills negating any successful take-downs. That's why Benitez's a good sized favorite. Benitez already has 2 guillotine choke victories in the UFC, and a third one isn't out of the question considering Barzola's stylistic approach to his fights. I'll guess a decision with some close calls from Benitez later in the fight once he turns on the pressure against Barzola.
Benitez via unanimous decision
Chase Sherman vs Rashad Coulter
This is one of those rare occasions where a scheduled fight between two guys end up having a replacement fighter for both sides. Coulter is 8-1 with all wins by KO/TKO. Sherman is on a 2 fight UFC losing streak and is coming off an embarrassing KO loss to Walt Harris. This is going to be one extremely average and possibly excruciating to watch once it goes past 1 round. Both guys will essentially be short notice, so I'm not going to expect two stellar, in shape heavyweights that can go heavy (no pun intended) for 3 rounds. With that said, I think Coulter has the best chance to get the early finish since he seems to have the better combinations and Sherman's chin got cracked several times by Walt Harris. However, Sherman will have a 4 inch height advantage but a 1 inch disadvantage (key point here) on Coulter, and against Justin Ledet he was able to still create offense and land some big shots despite being completely exhausted. That could be crucial in a low level heavyweight fight, where if it doesn't finish in the 1st then it usually means 2 laboring, sluggish HWs try to paw their way to victory much to the chagrin of the audience. Sherman sits behind a long jab and can land some hard kicks, but generally lacks the footwork to really make the 1-2 punch work in his favor. Sherman is stationary much too often and just doesn't move enough to really take advantage of his length and stiff jab. Coulter may be an unknown with some really mediocre opponents fought but he does have some solid countering skills and seems to move enough to put away Sherman in the 1st. If he doesn't, be prepared for the opposite of a slobber knocker as both guys pant their way to a decision.
Coulter via 1st round KO
Jared Gordon vs Michel Quinones
Both men will be making their UFC debuts and both have limited tape available to see their styles. From what I could gather, Gordon is a power puncher with some good grappling skills (BJJ brown belt) and was on Dana White's "Lookin' For A Fighter" show. That's not a good thing as the majority of those "discovered" by White have generally been an utter disappointment thus far. Gordon has some solid defensive skills and is very compact as a striker, with a booming right hand counter and a stalking presence on the feet. Wrestling wise, it's nothing to write home about but he does have some good back takes and his grappling is clearly advanced enough to mold into a good overall fighter. Quinones is a longer, lankier fighter with the more creative striking offense and relies heavily on his ability to land the head-kick. He often circles around his opponent, inviting them into his range and uncorking a quick 1-2 combination with a head-kick finisher. Quinones is also a adequate grappler with a dangerous guillotine choke, but generally tries to stay elusive on the feet and become a difficult opponent to get their hands on. Neither guy seem to want to be the aggressor in most of their fights, with Quinones often throwing out single kicks every now and then but preferring to sit back and wait. Gordon is more productive as a counter-striker, having dismantled a similar opponent in his last fight against Bill Algeo, though that was against a southpaw with less movement and worse defensive striking. I can see why Gordon is the slight favorite over Quinones since his right hand of doom and stalking forward pressure can shut down the Taekwondo game of Quinones, but the lack of aggression from Gordon worries me a little bit. Algeo was willing to let Gordon come forward and trade without much resistance. If he lets Quinones get into a rhythm and finds his range, it'll be a very close fight. Maybe Gordon decides to take it to the ground but I think they're both capable grapplers and that should be a neutral area for both. I'll pick Quinones by decision just because he's the more creative striker and I have no idea how Gordon will try to attack him.
Quinones via unanimous decision
Cortney Casey vs Jessica Aguilar
Casey was on a little bit of a tear with a 2 fight win streak before Gadelha showed her what wrassling was all about. She'll get former WSOF champion Jessica Aguilar, coming off an ACL tear that sidelined her for a year. Aguilar's a balanced fighter with good boxing skills that's more about continually changing angles and landing a high amount of 1-2 punch combinations. She doesn't have much power behind them but it gets the job done, as it helps Aguilar pace around her opponent to try and set up any level changes or clinch-ups. Aguilar has no real strength to her game, relying mainly on picking apart from range and simply being the much better overall fighter. Casey, on the other hand, is much more unpredictable than Aguilar and does have some dangerous grappling skills. Casey tries to land the big shot through her head-kicks and generally tries to push the pace whenever she can but struggles against fighters who can immediately end her aggression through wrestling. That's where Aguilar comes in, as she excels against pressure fighters simply by knowing when to engage in a take-down attempt or get inside through clinching. Aguilar's last fight against Gadelha was a little bit of a weird one as it was her UFC debut but was consistently getting beat to the punch and countered to death by Gadelha, who isn't known for her striking. Maybe it was the debut jitters, or maybe Aguilar wasn't actually as good as we thought she was. Whatever the case may be, Aguilar cannot let Casey continually counter her over and over especially if Casey's 4" height/3" reach advantage starts to overwhelm Aguilar. Ideally, Casey should try taking advantage of her length and stay at range, but I don't trust Casey with her aggressive nature and lackadaisical take-down defense against Aguilar's savvy wrestling and strong top control. Despite Casey's very active guard, I don't see her getting out of Aguilar's top control to avoid losing the round to her. For that reason, I'm going with Aguilar just based on her fight IQ and ability to control the fight wherever it goes.
Aguilar via unanimous decision
James Vick vs Marco Polo Reyes
I keep picking against Vick and he keeps letting me know I'm a fool for doing it. Too bad! I'm picking against Vick again and it's for one reason only. His chin! Polo Reyes may be nothing more than a surprisingly adept power boxer, but sometimes that's all you need in MMA. Vick has the length (4 inches height, 5 inches reach) on Reyes and is better everywhere outside of maybe from a pure boxing standpoint. And yet, the one thing that continues to haunt Vick has been the main reason I pick against him: HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BE TALL. What I mean by that is despite his obvious height/length advantage over everyone in the division, he fights as if he is actually 5'4 with a 60 inch reach. Instead of being an excellent long range striker with somewhat decent ability to circle away from pressure, Vick gets clipped at a way too high percentage for someone his size and skill-set. He did an excellent job against Trujillo which surprised me I'll admit, but Trujillo short-armed almost every one of his strikes and didn't really employ a strong wrestling attack. Reyes is much longer than Trujillo and has shown he can get aggressive whenever needed. Reyes has a sneakily good boxing style where he almost lulls you to sleep with his movement and quick but simple jab combinations, then brings it home with the hammer right hand. Y'all remember when Beneil Dariush knocked Vick back to Texas? Reyes has that kind of power and striking to do the same thing, provided Vick doesn't try to take him down which seems unlikely as he's usually all stand-up. What it boils down to is how Reyes reacts to Vick's length and annoyingly random kicks and if his cardio can hold up. If Reyes can catch one of those random kicks from Vick and lands clean, it's a KO victory. If he gets frustrated early and starts to wear down, then Vick does what he does best – attacks relentlessly and completely gasses his opponents into submission. The latter part of the scenarios is probably why he's such a big favorite, but I still don't believe! Those stupid random kicks and Vick's inability to keep his opponents from punching in the face despite standing 10 feet away just irks me to no end. Hopefully Vick yells out "Marco!" and Polo can find Vick's chin with his right hand. Or just get subbed, whatever. Ugh,
Reyes via 2nd round KO
David Branch vs Krzysztof Jotko
This will be David Branch's second stint with the UFC, having going 12-1 since the last time he fought under the UFC banner. He was a two title champion in the now defunct WSOF promotion (well, not defunct but remodeled?). He won't get an easy test against Jotko, riding a 5 fight UFC streak including a win over a top 10 (or was) middleweight opponent in Thales Leites. Branch is a very good BJJ black belt who's been trying hard to improve his striking as a way to complement that grappling advantage he has on most opponents. Here's the thing – he's better off focusing on becoming a better offensive wrestler and learning to close the gap effectively rather than trying to sharpen his striking acumen. Branch's wrestling is nothing special outside of a good reactive single leg take-down and some clinch work, but the quality of Branch's opponents faced during his time away from the UFC is almost nauseating. Seriously, go look at who he fought at light-heavyweight. Jotko may never give an astounding or awe-inspiring performance (the KO vs the Barncat doesn't count) but he's very good at his craft. Jotko uses feints and movement to keep his opponents guessing on the feet, and balances that out with well-timed level changes and reactive take-downs for some GnP. You might consider Jotko a grinder since Jotko doesn't fight aggressively or goes for the home-run, but sometimes in the UFC you just gotta do what you do best. Branch will have to get the fight to the ground if he wants to win the fight, as his defensive liabilities still showed up on tape and he's very predictable with his choice of strikes/combinations. Remember, this was against lesser opponents. Jotko has been largely untested against take-downs, but seems adept enough inside the clinch to prevent any further offense from Branch, but he does tend to leave himself open on kick attempts. That's where Branch could find success, much like Magnus Cedenblad did in his submission win over Jotko.
Branch is outstanding from top control on the ground, moving at light-speed on his advances and getting right in position for the submission. The main problem with Branch is he tends to lack offensive activity if he can't get his opponents to engage or get inside their range. Jotko has improved during his win streak with his defensive skills and has the tools to stave off Branch's take-downs. Maybe Branch might be too quick for Jotko to defend his take-downs, but the lack of quality opponents faced and Jotko's win streak has me leaning towards Jotko. Branch should be a favorite dog play to use due to finish potential if he does get it to the ground.
Jotko via unanimous decision
Chas Skelly vs Jason Knight
HICK DIAZ!!! One of the best match-matching by the UFC is now available for all to watch on the FS1 prelims as Hick Diaz (Knight) squares off against uber aggressive Skelly, riding a 2 fight win streak with 5 finishes in his 6 UFC wins. It's got high potential for an incredibly entertaining fight between two guys who really honestly could not care less about their own safety or whether or not they're winning or losing. Hick Diaz is also riding a 3 fight win streak, but hasn't looked as dominant as Skelly mostly due to the way he fights. Knight comes forward and demands a toe to toe brawl, not caring about his defensive liabilities or his opponents' power. Skelly prefers to actually try and end it quickly in the 1st round with a barrage on overhands followed by some sort of take-down that catches his opponents off guard with Skelly latching on their back. If that plan fails, that's when it gets reaaaaaally interesting as Skelly turns into Hick Diaz lite. He pushes forward and relentlessly tries to be the 1st one to land a punch in any and all striking exchanges, disregarding how gassed he is as well as his defensive liabilities. Skelly just wants to be the enforcer during said exchanges instead of sitting back and being a counter-striker. Ain't nobody got time for that nonsense. Knight and Skelly both want to push the pace and attack relentlessly and see who has the better chin. Now, what's the real key to victory here for either man?
For Skelly, it's how he starts and ends the 1st round. I think he's going to go for the take-down as soon as possible, as Knight isn't a hard man to take down and has shown he can be susceptible to back takes. While Skelly does have the heart and sheer determination to make the fight a war and actually maybe eke out a decision, it's just not in his best interest to engage Hick Diaz on the feet. For Knight, he has to start off fast and keep that energy level as long as possible, breaking down Skelly with consistent flurries of 1-2 combinations, taking advantage of Skelly's terrible tendency at over-extending himself on his overhands and leaving his chin on an island. Kevin Souza dropped Skelly with a crisp overhand, and Jim Alers was able to batter Skelly in the early goings before the HEART OF SKELLY went into overdrive. Knight has the better stand-up and can actually somewhat defend himself, while Skelly quite literally goes for broke on almost all of his striking exchanges (his jab did show some improvement in his last fight, but who knows?). Knight could take down Skelly every now and then but I don't think he wants to keep it on the ground for too long as his biggest edge is his ability to string together combinations on a gassed but pissed Skelly. Hedge this fight as a gassed Skelly who fails in getting a 1st round take-down into a sub should be easy pickings for Hick Diaz. Skelly is just too good in the 1st round and Knight has no real take-down defense and relies too much on his ground defense to get back up on his feet. That's going to hurt him one of these days, and Saturday's going to be one of those days.
Skelly via 1st round RNC
Henry Cejudo vs Sergio Pettis (fight cancelled, Cejudo injury)
I'm a little confused by the match-up, as Cejudo may be on a 2 fight losing skid but arguably should have won against Joseph Benavidez and is clearly much better than Sergio Pettis. Maybe it's a fight for Cejudo to prove that he's still a top 5 FFW if he can dominate Pettis for 3 rounds. Whatever the case may be, it's still a match-up to dissect and explain why Cejudo is one of the biggest favorites on the card. There's two reasons for that, and the 2nd one might be the toughest one to grasp. More on that later. Sergio Pettis has been struggling to find his place in the UFC, having fought and lost at bantanweight then moving down to flyweight and getting knocked out by Ryan Benoit. He's now riding a 3 fight UFC win streak against some decent opponents, but it's how he won those fights that still has me concerned. In several of those said wins, it appeared Pettis finally figured out how this whole MMA thing works (he's still 24 years old!) with a great 1st round and on his way to a potential finish. Then that 2nd or 3rd round comes, and for whatever reason Pettis just looks lost and starts losing his grip on the fight. Of course, being on a 3 win streak means he had enough offense to win the majority of the fight, but that's still not a good look regardless. Cejudo has been drastically improving his striking to the point where he was actually out-striking Joe-B at certain points of their fight, a feat rarely achieved by anyone outside of the champion. That's very important against Pettis and his Taekwondo striking style, needing to cut Pettis off and limit the space he can operate with. That's doable with Cejudo's quick and increasingly crisper boxing along with the usual footwork that Cejudo has shown in past fights. Now, here's the second reason why Cejudo's a big favorite. His wrestling, or rather, the idea of his wrestling. Cejudo is a gold medal Olympian wrestler and clearly has the highest wrestling pedigree in the division, but for whatever reason or another Cejudo appears content at keeping the fight on the feet and rarely delving into his bag of wrestling tricks. Pettis has continually struggled against any sort of decent offensive wrestling from every opponent he's faced, and if Cejudo decided to treat Pettis as his personal rag-doll to toss around, then it's going to be a ton of points along with a easy victory for Cejudo. That just hasn't happened enough times for Cejudo to make me think a wrestling heavy game plan is in store against Pettis, but even if he doesn't showcase his superb offensive wrestling Cejudo still should be able to continually pressure and take away Pettis' space. By doing that, he limits the effectiveness of Pettis' combinations and takes away the biggest weapon Pettis has against Cejudo in his head-kicks. I'd probably avoid Cejudo's price on DK based solely on the lack of a consistent wrestling game plan limiting his upside in a fight that won't end in the 1st round in all likelihood. Gotta go with the guy who's shown more rather than talent on paper alone.
Cejudo via unanimous decision
Dustin Poirier vs Eddie Alvarez
This is going to be a war. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Ok, there's a but coming. Alvarez has a tendency to delve into his wrestling well when things get too difficult after the 1st round, as evidenced by both his fights against Gilbert Melendez and Anthony Pettis. For the most part, Alvarez is a willing brawler and isn't afraid to stand and bang when duty calls. Poirier loves to start fast and finish fast, pushing forward and creating a high striking pace that sets the tone of the fight, and for the Diamond, the more pressure on his opponents the more Dustin shines. Alvarez has the better counters and quicker combinations but lacks the length Poirier brings the table as well as his tenacity and willingness to go for broke. One of Poirier's biggest issue has been his cardio as he usually gasses badly after the 1st round due to the obvious breakneck pace he creates, and that's an advantage Alvarez has with his superior conditioning. Then on the other hand, Alvarez did get dominated by McGregor's left straight which is something Poirier excels at and has been one of the biggest reasons why Poirier has been such a knockout artist. Alvarez has better head and foot movement, while Poirier can be too stationary at times and doesn't tuck in his chin when he tries to stretch out for that left straight. That's got him in trouble before and resulted in a devastating knockout loss against Michael Johnson, and the same thing could very well happen by an Eddie left hook. Here's the real equalizer though – both guys have extremely questionable chins and always seem to get rocked at least once in every fight. They're great at recovering quickly and still continuing to fight at an elite level. Does that matter when 2 similar chins come to blows? I don't know, but it really might make it all the better when both guys are just falling down all over the place. Anyway, what this comes down is Poirier's pressure/left straight against Eddie's movement/counter-hooks. I doubt Eddie will try to wrestle Poirier as Dustin is a tough guy to take down and has an equally difficult guard on the ground. This is quite the coin flip and a fight you must hedge no matter what. I love Poirier's frenetic pace and wide array of strikes at his arsenal, while Eddie is more technical and patient but has a bad tendency at letting his opponents set the tone and control where the fight goes. For that reason, I'm going to pick Poirier by knockout just because he can utilize his length and force Eddie to retreat more than he'd like, attacking whenever he traps Alvarez in the corner much like McGregor was able to push Eddie near the fence. Yes, it's McGregor and he's a counter-striker but the idea is still the same – make Eddie back-pedal and take away his space to create openings at landing the left straight. Let 'em fight!!!!
Poirier via 2nd round KO
Demian Maia vs Jorge Masvidal
This will be a very simple breakdown. Can Maia get Masvidal down? If he can't, it's ALL OVER!!! If he can, it's ALL OVER!!!! Demian Maia knows what butters his bread, and it's all about setting up the take-down at any cost. Maia has one of the more diverse array of take-downs he can employ at any given time, starting with the trusty double leg take-down. If that doesn't work, then he's able to pivot off it and work his way around inside the clinch, creating just enough space to hit a trip take-down. Even if all of his initial attempts fail, Maia is smart enough to disengage and try again later without expending too much energy. He'll need to bring his A game against Masvidal, long known as one of the more difficult fighters to take down/keep on the ground. There is no point talking about Maia's stand-up as it's purely a means to an end, which is getting his opponents to the ground ASAP. Masvidal is a billion times better on the feet and can pummel Maia into oblivion at any given point, but we're focusing on Maia for now. While Masvidal is indeed a difficult task for Maia, it's not because Masvidal is elusive or is impossible to get their hands on. It's more because Masvidal knows how to leverage his way out of take-down attempts and prepare himself to quickly escape any successful attempts. Maia is a master at positioning himself just before and during take-down attempts so when he does land it, he's quickly in side mount or has put his opponent in a disadvantageous position. So what it comes down to is can Maia utilize that same strategy against Masvidal? I think he can, but there's a bigger question looming – can Maia finish Masvidal on the ground before he eventually gasses (and he will gas, he's almost 40 years old!) and gets his face bashed in during the waning moments of the fight? I say yes, but it's a very hesitant yes and hugely dependent on his initial positioning. If Maia gets side control right away, I could see him sliding his way into full mount and grabbing a RNC as Masvidal tries his best to squirm his way out of it. If Maia gets into a closed guard, then all that's gonna do is deplete his gas tank and allow Masvidal to bide his time until the ref stands it up. I'm going to trust the process and pick Maia, but I'll say Masvidal has the better upside just because he can end it at any time during the fight and only has to defend the take-down as opposed to Maia having to defend everything on the feet.
Maia via 1st round RNC
Frankie Edgar vs Yair Rodriguez
This is one of the most intriguing fights not only the card but for both fighters. We all know what Frankie Edgar can bring to the table with his championship experience and balanced movement-based boxing attack with well-timed take-downs, but what about the Latin sensation Yair Rodriguez? Rodriguez is riding a 5 fight UFC win streak since becoming the TUF Latin America champion, and the way's he's done it is why the UFC (and the rest of us) think so highly of him. Yair combines sheer athleticism with flying acrobatic kicks and stunning strikes from all angles, and the damnedest thing is he looks so smooth switching from one stance to another after landing a 360 kick of some sort. Rodriguez is a difficult man to gameplan for, as no one really exhibits the kind of athleticism and unique striking that Yair excels at. Edgar is as consistent as they come from a pure fighter perspective, always performing at a high level and never losing to someone he shouldn't. The biggest question for Frankie is can he slow down Rodriguez's crazy attacks and punish him for it? Edgar will be 5 inches shorter with a 3 inch reach disadvantage, and that could be all Yair needs to dominate the fight from long range. Edgar's always had a tough time dealing with longer, lankier guys who can sit back and force Frankie to rush inside for any sort of offense. The way he's been able to really mitigate these kinds of disadvantages is through his wrestling and level changes. Edgar is so adept at finding the rhythm and timing of his opponent's striking that he can pinpoint the exact time he should duck and get a quick, simple take-down. It's what makes Frankie such a good fighter over the years just because he's never one dimensional and is always evolving during fights.
The main focus here is whether or not Frankie can utilize his wrestling against an opponent who is 5 inches taller and is constantly moving/switching spots in the octagon. While Yair can get himself caught on one of his fancy kicks, he's got an impressive guard to get right back up on his feet, aided by his lanky build and great training. Rodriguez possesses the skill-set to be a true long range striker and actually become a creative one at it, unlike the stereotypical long range striker who mainly have 2-3 predictable attacks and that's it. Rodriguez is instant offense at any time, but Frankie can force Yair to become one dimensional if he can catch onto Rodriguez's rhythm and timing. I'm not sure if there's a high finishing chance for either one outside of the eye-popping knockouts that Rodriguez is capable of, as Frankie is as tough as they come and won't go down without a fight. If Edgar gets his boxing going and Rodriguez can't find his range early, it could be a long night for Pantera, but I suspect we'll see a real tight battle of drastically different styles and strategies. I lean towards Frankie just because I think he can win a couple rounds with well-timed take-downs and do enough offense to keep Yair guessing, but man, a flying knee KO could happen out of thin air for Rodriguez.
Edgar via unanimous decision
Jessica Andrade vs Joanna Jedrzejcyzk
Ah, another title defense for Joanna Champion. Only this time, Andrade might actually give Jedrzejcyzk a real dog-fight unlike Joanna's past opponents (142 sig strikes landed combined for her last 4 opponents not counting LeTorneau, who was able to land 103 strikes but also absorbed an absurd 220 sig strikes from Joanna!). Remember, those are 5 round title fights. This will be a clash of differing fighting styles, as Joanna Champion is an accurate high volume oriented striker with dazzling and blistering fast combinations, while Andrade prefers to stalk and wait for her moment to pounce with a gigantic flurry of every punch imaginable. It's essentially constant combination-based striking versus sporadic but unnerving blitzes and flurries. Joanna has simply just been too damn good at landing her combinations from anywhere in the octagon, and not even just landing them, Joanna has been spectacularly precise with her attacks despite the insane amount of strikes she attempts to land. And Joanna Champion doesn't let down either, continuing to push on and consistently land 3-4 strike combinations even when she's starting to slow down near the end. Point blank, Joanna Champion really has been a legitimate 115 lb champ with the fastest, most accurate striking in the division. So what the heck can Andrade do to slow down the J-Train? Simple. Pressure her back!
Andrade may have a 3" reach disadvantage against Joanna, but that won't stop her from being a homing missile, hell bent on cornering Jedrzejcyzk and wreaking havoc from the clinch and up the fence. It's one of the only two options I can see Andrade being able to employ in order to get the upset. Andrade has a disturbing ability to somehow funnel opponents' offense right into her lap, helping close the gap and feeding her insatiable appetite at landing 100 punches in 5 seconds flat. The thing with Andrade's flurries is while it may look random with wild overhands and hooks, she's actually being careful at what strike to throw in order to set up what really is her most devastating weapon – the body hooks. Oh, those gut punches really do add up and makes life miserable in the later rounds when breathing becomes painful and difficult. Yes, Andrade does have the power to knock out Joanna, but what's the point of that if Andrade can't even slow down Joanna's attacks? The other way Andrade can win is by using her physique to bull-doze Jedrzejcyzk into the ground, much like Gadelha was momentarily able to do in both fights. The problem with that strategy is even though Jedrzejcyzk can be vulnerable on the ground, she's not terrible enough to be quickly dispatched as Gadelha soon found out. That can be very detrimental to Andrade' gas tank and considering Jedrzejcyzk never stops with her high volume striking, it's probably in Andrade's best interest to regulate her cardio at all times for what should be a 5 round battle.
Jedrzejcyzk just doesn't have many holes to her game, having completely dismantled the majority of her opponents in the UFC and proving that her high octane striking style can indeed be impactful and successful even in a long 5 round fight. The only real issue for Jedrzejcyzk may be her chin, as she did get hurt badly against Kowalkiewicz but quickly recovered to put on a dazzling effort, completely shutting down everything Kowalkiewicz tried to throw at JJ. Andrade has the kind of freakish power that the strawweight division hasn't seen, and that could be the equalizer Andrade needs in order to be the new champion. Unfortunately, I just don't think Andrade can consistently corner Jedrzejcyzk enough times to really put that power on display. Andrade's has some cardio issues in the past as well, and that's just asking for trouble against a surging late-round Jedrzejcyzk. There's an off chance that both fighters hit the 100+ sig mark at the end of the fight, so employing both in cash lineups isn't an awful idea at all. At her price point on DK, Joanna is a must have in every format as she has been a scoring machine no matter the opponent. Just look up her stats! I'm hoping it's a back and forth affair much like Angela Hill vs Andrade. Joanna Violence!
Jedrzejcyzk via unanimous decision
Junior Dos Santos vs Stipe Miocic
It's the rematch JDS has been waiting for, as the former heavyweight champion has gone through the ups and downs of being in a terribly unpredictable division. JDS went from knocking out Velazquez in the 1st round then getting absolutely smashed by Cain two times in a row, to knocking out a legend of the sport in Mark Hunt and then getting KO'd out of nowhere against Alistair Overeem. JDS has certainly been no stranger to the pitfalls of the HW division, a place where there hasn't been a clear cut contender nor any inkling on how the hell any heavyweight fight could turn out. Yes, Miocic has been one of the more consistent HWs in the UFC with 10 wins in his 12 UFC fights, including a title defense win over the man who just knocked out JDS. I'm sure Miocic really wants to avenge his loss against JDS in what was one of the best wars the division had to offer, but he cannot let emotions play a part in the rematch if he wishes to continue being the champ. Now down to brass tacks.
The reason JDS has had his up and downs as a former champion could be alluded to several things from a lack of motivation to the division just simply catching up to JDS's speed. I lean towards the former, as his fight against Overeem just didn't make sense as JDS looked tentatively and noticeably in less than stellar shape. Maybe it was a bad cut or maybe JDS just didn't feel up to it. Whatever the reason might have been, JDS eliminated many of my doubts about his skill-set after he carved up Ben Rothwell in classic JDS fashion. What is classic JDS you may ask? It's simply by utilizing his superior speed and foot movement to take advantage of his great boxing skills, especially when JDS starts finding his range with the jab. JDS just baffled Rothwell everywhere in that fight, mixing up his combinations and attacking every part of Rothwell's body while being elusive enough to avoid any big hits. He racked up 157 sig strikes against Big Ben, with most of those strikes aided by a stiff jab. Not only that, JDS can land some very acrobatic kicks at any given moment, truly making JDS one of the elite strikers of the division with his combination of speed and power that once made him a champion. But what about Miocic?
Miocic is a little bit similar to JDS, depending on a stiff jab and quickness to gain an edge on the feet. But unlike JDS, Miocic is more of a counter-striker and doesn't rely much on foot movement, often standing tall and stationary. Somehow, Miocic makes that work by relying on his fast reaction time and being an effective counter-puncher. He's not as creative of a striker like JDS nor does he try to land a high amount of strikes, but he's good at his craft and it's allowed him to be as consistent as possible against anyone he faces. That will be important in the rematch as his strategy of trying to wrestle JDS and force him into the clinch just simply did not work out. It depleted Miocic gas tank and allowed JDS to clip him at an alarming rate, even dropping him at one point. Miocic still has an average gas tank and is heavily reliant on his counter-right and being able to be the quicker, busier striker against flat footed heavyweights.
Miocic will have to force JDS to engage him close in Miocic's range instead of letting JDS dictate the pace and flow of the fight like before. How can Miocic do that when he doesn't really push forward or circle around much? I'm not sure, and that's why I have a difficult time picking Miocic to avenge his loss against JDS. He just simply doesn't have enough offense to keep up with JDS' boxing and step-back jab to force JDS to actually have to become a counter-striker. The one glaring question with JDS that could change the trajectory of the fight has been whether or not JDS' chin is done or not. Overeem was able to crack him and knock him out cold, while Rothwell wasn't able to land any clean shots to really test JDS' chin. Miocic may have been badly gassed against JDS in the 1st fight but he was still able to counter JDS' attacks in the later rounds and hit on some long range overhands to no avail. Now, that was a while ago when JDS still was considered a zombie chin. This time around? Who knows. Movement and the jab against the counter-right will decide the fight. JDS simply has too many tools in his arsenal and is one of the few (maybe the only HW) who can not only match Stipe's speed and athleticism but may actually be faster and quicker than Miocic. Cigano! Time for Cain vs JDS IV.
Dos Santos via unanimous decision
Related Items2015Daily Fantasy MMAmma dfs

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Retired July 1, 1948. Died October 3, 1965.
Delos Carleton Emmons was born in 1888 in Huntingdon, West Virginia. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in June 1909 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant of Infantry. Emmons was assigned as commanding officer of Company B, 30th Infantry at Presidio in San Francisco and in May 1912 went to Fort Gibbon, Alaska with the 30th. He returned to Plattsburg Barracks, New York.
He became a First Lieutenant in July 1916 and was detailed to the Signal Corps' Aviation Section for pilot training in August 1916. He was rated a junior military aviator in May 1917 and became a Captain in July. Emmons next served as aeronautical officer of the Western Department at San Francisco and in December went to Washington as assistant executive in the Office of the Chief Signal Officer. The following June Emmons became a major and went to Mather Field, Calif. He became a lieutenant colonel in August and in December was transferred to McCook Field in Dayton, Ohio as assistant chief of the Engineering Division.
Emmons transferred to the Air Service in July 1920 and a year later completed the Air Service Course at Harvard University. He returned to McCook Field for three years as chief of Production Engineering. Emmons went to Crissy Field, California, in August 1924 where he served as commanding officer of the field, and then to Rockwell Field as commanding officer of the 91st Observation Squadron. He went to Washington, D.C., in August 1927 as executive officer for the chief of the Air Corps. He held the same assignment for the assistant secretary of war for air in October 1928. Emmons graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Emmons was commanding officer and air officer of the 18th Composite Wing and the Hawaiian Department at Fort Shafter in the Hawaiian Islands from March 1934 to July 1936. He became a colonel in March 1935. Colonel Emmons returned to the United States in July 1936 as commander of the 1st Wing at March Field, California. He had been promoted to Brigadier General the previous month. Emmons received his second star in March 1939 while commanding general of Headquarters Air Force at Langley Field, Virginia. After the fall of France the Americans and British increased their military cooperation; Emmons was one of three American military observers sent to London August 6, 1940. He was promoted to Lieutenant General in November and became chief of the Air Force Combat Command in June 1941.
General Emmons returned to Hawaii as commanding general of the Hawaiian Department December 17, 10 days after Pearl Harbor. He requested Army Air Force Headquarters to send additional planes and received them as rapidly as possible. Emmons built up the forces in Hawaii, anticipating the battle of Midway.
Returning to the United States in June 1943 Emmons was assigned three months later as commanding general of the Western Defense Command at Presidio, San Francisco. Emmons headed the Alaskan Department at Fort Richardson from June 1944 until June 1946. He became commandant of the Armed Forces Staff College at Norfolk, Virginia, in August 1946 and remained in that position until he retired June 30, 1948.
General Emmons' awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters; Legion of Merit; Legion of Merit (Navy); Distinguished Flying Cross Air Medal; American Defense Service Medal with Foreign Service Clasp; American Campaign Medal; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with Bronze Star; World War I Victory Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Mexican Border Service Medal.


This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education self-study credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one (1) hour of Ethics Credit for Attorneys and Paralegal Staff. The San Joaquin County Bar Association certifies that these activities conform to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.
Although these rules seem straightforward enough, complications arise when attempting to apply these rules in a criminal case. One issue is that clients frequently demand that sensitive documents and information be given to them during the course of the representation. This is an issue because our ethical obligations to disclose file materials to clients while a representation is ongoing is not always clear, and there are often factors that contraindicate disclosure of certain file materials to a client while a representation is ongoing. A related problem is that criminal cases present information and physical security issues that are not usually present in civil cases.
Several issues regarding file disclosure and handling arise in criminal cases after the termination of representation in criminal cases, which have considerations that differ from those in civil case representations.
To what extent must a lawyer release a file to a client during an ongoing representation?
To what extent must a lawyer release a file to a client when that attorney is "fired" by the client, but not relieved by the court?
A future article will deal with the related issues of how to handle file information after the termination of representation.
I. To What Extent Must a Lawyer Release a File to a Client During an Ongoing Representation?
The ethics rules and guidance regarding the release of files to a client deal with former clients upon the termination of representation by the attorney. There is much less guidance when the representation continues. This is unfortunate, as criminal attorneys are routinely asked to copy and release file materials to their clients. In particular, clients are usually interested in what they call "discovery packets," by which they mean the police reports in the case. The clients want their "discovery packets" for different reasons, and they are often very eager to get them. In some cases, it is quite helpful for clients to have copies of their discovery, and in other cases it can be extremely damaging to the case. The attorney must thus decide whether to release any documents to the client, and if the attorney decides to release documents, he or she must decide what information to release.
Should the Lawyer Release Documents to the Existing Client?
The rule that a client's file should be turned over to a client upon request is not a hard and fast one, and sometimes it is better not to do so when release of a file to a client is likely to prejudice the client's case.8 For example, if a client's jail-mates read the client's file they may claim that the client confessed information from the file to them, and try to make deals for themselves with the prosecution at the expense of the client. This is sometimes a significant problem. The author experienced this with a murder client who insisted on having copies of the discovery given to him. One of his jail-mates read the paperwork and decided to contact the District Attorney's Office to better his situation at the expense of the client. This was not good for my client's case, and forced my office to conflict out of both his case and that of his jailmate. This concern can be sufficient to justify an attorney refusing to release police reports to an incarcerated client even when the client demands them.9 Another issue is that possession of the police reports seem to induce some clients to communicate things in letters (which are frequently intercepted and copied by the authorities) or jail telephone calls (which are routinely recorded) which can be extremely harmful to their cases.
Nevertheless, as the ABA standard suggests, the decision to withhold the police reports from the client should be the exception and not the rule. It seems unwise to withhold file material from a client unless there is The ethical obligation to disclose file materials to clients while a representation is ongoing is not always clear, and there are often factors that contraindicate disclosure of certain file materials to a client while a representation is ongoing. a clear, articulable case-related reason for doing so. Although the decision not to release the police reports to a client may benefit the client, it can seriously strain the attorney-client relationship. Where concerns about the risks of providing documents to the client exist, it may be fruitful to firmly warn the client of the dangers of having the police reports and try to talk them out of it. If the client insists, however, it would seem prudent, in most cases, copying the reports for them notwithstanding the dangers. It is best to treat adults as adults, and the ABA standard suggests that it is up to the client whether he or she wishes to assume the risk of having the documents.
What Information Should the Lawyer Release to a Current Client?
In addition, when deciding what material is appropriate to release to the client, format is important. In general, file material in an electronic format is treated in the same manner as paper file material.24 However, the lawyer "must consider the client's access to technology and comfort with it, as well as the ability of the client to comprehend the nature of the information provided by the attorney."25 The attorney should also consider the client's actual need for the material.26 In modern discovery practice, much of the data will be in electronic form such as audio and video files that require special software to run, raw data from DNA tests or medical procedures that can only be run with special software, data dumps from insurance companies, and the like. Discovery of this type is commonly provided by the prosecutor on CD-Rs, DVDRs, and flash drives. Although clients who are in custody sometimes ask for this material, it is not appropriate to release it to them. They do not have access to the computers necessary to make use of the information, and the jail authorities will not allow the client to keep discs and flash drives. An attorney providing this kind of discovery to an in-custody client will likely be violating the jail's security rules.27 Even for out-of-custody clients, many kinds of electronic discovery, such as Mobile Video/ Audio Recording Systems (MVARS) files and police body camera videos are often subject to protective orders, so it is wise for an attorney to be aware of the terms of such orders before releasing these to a client. Also, recorded interviews of witnesses frequently contain material which we may on not release to the clients under Penal Code section 1054.2 and other sources of authority. The programs that play these recordings often have protections against tampering with the evidence, which prevents any convenient method of redacting this information out of the recordings. These issues must be kept in mind and accounted for prior to releasing file information to a client in a criminal case.
II. To What Extent Must a Lawyer Release a File to a Client When That Attorney is "Fired" by the Client, but not Relieved by the Court?
As a matter of law, "[i]t has long been recognized in this state the client's power to discharge an attorney, with or without cause, is absolute."28 However, the representation does not end until the court accepts a substitution of attorney or relieves the attorney.29 Additionally, a client's power to discharge an attorney is not absolute in the case of appointed counsel in a criminal case. There are only three ways that a client who has been appointed an attorney can discharge the appointed attorney. The first is to convince the court, in a closed hearing, that the representation by his or her appointed counsel is inadequate, or the client's relationship with the lawyer has deteriorated to such an extent that the lawyer cannot effectively represent the client.30 The second is to have another attorney substitute into the case. The third is for the client to represent him or herself.31 It is not uncommon for a criminal defense client to "fire" the attorney, and perhaps refuse to cooperate with the attorney in the defense of the case, but the attorney is not relieved by the court and remains the attorney of record on the case.
Should the Attorney Release Documents to a Client who has "Fired" the Attorney, but for Whose Case the Attorney has not been Relieved?
When an attorney is discharged by a client but not relieved by the court, the attorney remains as the attorney of record on the case and as such retains the authority to bind the client and the duty to competently represent and prevent harm to the client.32 The attorney also retains the duty to keep the client reasonably informed and promptly reply to requests for information.33 To do so, the attorney must generally keep the file.1 In essence, until relieved by the court, an appointed attorney remains the attorney for all purposes, and so the analysis of whether, and what, to provide to the client in that situation is the same as that for any other existing client.
In general, an attorney should comply with requests by current clients for copies of file materials unless there is a clearly articulable, case-related reason for not doing so. However, in doing so, counsel must ensure that certain types of information, including personal information related to witnesses and jurors, are redacted from any discovery given to the client. As a practical matter, in criminal cases it is not often possible to disclose certain kinds of discovery, such as audio or video recordings, to the client.
4 Rose v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 646, 655; State Bar Formal Opinion 2001-157.
5 Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 790; State Bar Formal Opinion 1994-134.
6 Rule 3-700(D)(1) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.
7 See Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 612, 621-622.
8 Business and Professions Code, section 6068, subdivision (m); Rule 3-500 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.
9 State Bar Formal Opinion 1994-134.
11 North Carolina State Bar 2013 Formal Opinion 2 lists several circumstances in which a lawyer might reasonably and ethically decide against giving police reports to criminal defense clients during the course of the representation. The guidance in North Carolina is clearer than it is in California. That ethics opinion held that an attorney must keep a client informed and must review some discovery with the client, but "the lawyer is not required to provide the client with a physical copy of the discovery materials during the course of the representation."
12 People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 600.
13 ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function, Standard 4-3.11(c).
14 Penal Code § 1054.2, subd. (a)(1).
15 Penal Code § 1054.2, subd. (a)(3).
16 Penal Code § 1054.2, subd. (b).
17 This would be based on the theory of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Under that maxim, since the prohibition covers only specific things, it would be implied that disclosure of other kinds of witness information is not prohibited and should not be redacted from police reports before giving them to clients.
18 Code of Civil Procedure § 237.
19 Penal Code § 293; Government Code § 6254, subd. (f)(2).
20 The prohibition on attorneys against releasing witness addresses and phone numbers to clients originated from Proposition 115, the Crime Victims Justice Reform act of 1990, § 23. It was clarified and expanded in the Hayden and Frusetta Witness Protection Act of 1997 (AB 207) 1997 CA.Stats. ch 498.
21 ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function, Standard 4-3.9(a).
22 Former California Rule of Court, Rule 1.20, subd. (b).
23 See California Rules of Court, Rule 5.503, subd. (e)(2).
24 California Style Manual (4th ed., 2000) § 5.9 et seq.
26 North Carolina State Bar Formal Opinion 2013-2.
27 Orange County Bar Association Formal Opinion 2005-01.
28 Orange County Bar Association Formal Opinion 2005-01, citing Maine Board of Overseers of Bar Ethics Opinion 183 (2004).
29 Orange County Bar Association Formal Opinion 2005-01.
30 Usually, the way that video and audio discovery is shared with a client is by going to the jail and playing the files on a computer. In San Joaquin County, the jail does not provide such computers so the attorney must bring a laptop. Currently, the jail will only allow the laptop into the jail if jail officials confirm that the laptop does not pick up wi-fi signals.
31 Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 790.
32 Code of Civil Procedure § 284.
33 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. There are many published decisions regarding the bases for granting or denying Marsden motions, which are beyond the scope of this article.
34 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.
35 State Bar Formal Opinion 1994-134.
To receive one (1) hour of MCLE credit, please answer the questions below. Each question has only one answer. Mail your answer form to San Joaquin County Bar Association, 20 N. Sutter Street, Stockton, CA 95202, with a $25.00 processing fee. Please make checks payable to SJCBA. The correct answers and an MCLE certificate will be mailed to you.
In California, case file materials are the property of the attorney.
Normally, a client may discharge an attorney for any or no reason.
The same is true for clients with appointed counsel in criminal cases.
The lawyer must keep the client reasonably informed of significant developments in the client's case.
As a general rule, a client should be given copies of file materials, including police reports, when requested.
Sometimes giving clients file information in a criminal case can be harmful to the client's case.
Upon request, the attorney should give the client a complete copy of the police reports, without first redacting the witnesses' personal information.
The attorney should, upon request, give CDs and DVDs from the file to clients who are being held in the jail.
The attorney should, upon request, arrange for significant CDs and DVDs from the file to be played for clients who are being held in the jail.
Releasing witness personal information from a police report to a client is a misdemeanor.
If a client chooses to represent himself, or he or she is entitled to unredacted copies of the police reports from the case.
Rules requiring the redaction of personal information of victims, witnesses, and jurors do not apply to defense attorneys.
Defense attorneys must comply with protective orders in releasing information to clients.
If a client "fires" an appointed attorney in a criminal case, the attorney's obligation to represent the client in the case ceases immediately.
An appointed attorney in a criminal case who is "fired" by a client, but not relieved by the court, continues to represent that client.
An attorney should disclose file material in a reasonable time and manner to potential successor counsel.
It is unethical to try to dissuade a client from taking copies of file materials.
If a client chooses to represent himself, he is entitled to the help of a private investigator to help prepare the case.
The extent that copies of file materials are given to clients in criminal cases should be guided by legal requirements and the attorney's professional judgment regarding the needs of the case.
An attorney appointed in a criminal case who is "fired" by the client, but not relieved by the court, is still obligated to work in the client's interest.
Stockton's New Courthouse: It's Really Happening!
Adam Grace is a San Joaquin County deputy public defender. Contact Adam at (209) 468-0577 or .


KL Falconry was founded in 2012; I have been doing falconry from the age of 10. Falconry is my passion and I wanted to share the amazing experience with the world, giving old and young the chance to interact with these magnificent animals!
When I decided to do Raptor Rehabilitation, I travelled to South Africa to get the experience to do so. Whilst there I worked with many animals including a number of magnificent birds! (All of these photos are on our Facebook page).
The team is growing and we hope that you can be a part of it! If you feel you can help us in any way please contact us! Also if you would just like the opportunity to meet the birds, let us know and this can be arranged!